Among other things there are listings of the original OKW 10 by 10 day loss reports and also adding them up. Its quite easy to for example finding losses on the eastern front at any given periode. Note on finding the pre 1941 figurs. They are there, just for some reason listed seperately. Also there are pictures of photocopies of various OKW/OKH/OKM/OKL loss reports and many other things.

Yes im aware and have studied Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans studies and his critic of OKW figurs. One should be keenly aware that there are problems in comparing numbers, not that i say his figurs are incorrect, but he just has a different methode in giving figurs. Also critisc/comments on his works has been made. Unfortunatly Nicklas Zetterlings isnt available online any more, at leased that i know off.

Here is a very brief overview of Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans studies. Tho wiki, figurs seem to be correct and the same as on atop sites

Nice, these are exactly the tables I was thinking of. Obviously they reprinted them almost identically in the edited version that was published post war. I like that, means it is "raw data".

For about 200,000-300,000 death reported by the different studies between June and December 1941, the rule of thumb would say about another 600k to 900k, were long-term wounded or permanently out of action. So by October being around some 900k may be a gross but reasonable estimate.

Scook_99, you are pretty much on the mark and state the same things a lot of people here have said, and would agree with. Surely the fact that the Soviets contested the territory much tougher, and counterattacked on many opportunities on many force scales "attritted" the Germans, but the Germans seem to also have fought things out on more engagements -- as players with all these CVs and other stats, fog of war or not, we can be much more selective. And we have the benefit of hindsight, none of us believes that the war can never be lost, and must be over by Christmas -- so a few extra casualties won't make a difference, the Russians are inferior anyway... all this kind of illogical thinking that misguided (many of) the Germans.

I am more and more convinced that with the recent changes in the patches, the Soviets can't survive the casualties, strategy and tactics their historical counterparts showed without getting so far off track that Berlin by May 45 would still be reasonably possible. The more forces they risk, the quicker they will loose their long term prospects. One must keep in mind that despite all the mistakes they made and the chaos and casualties, they were still strong enough to stop the Germans at Leningrad and at Moscow.

Even if you take hindsight on both sides into account (which would allow the German smarter strategies, less uneconomic fighting and the realization that the long run counts as well; and the Soviets to realize that their fate was about preserving their Army more so than terrain or a few factories, while not loosing too much population), defending Moscow and Leningrad simultaneously seems to be a tough nut to crack, if not almost impossible even without huge losses prior.

Unfortunately with Lvov, the impossibility to adjust within a turn as a defender (and cause a meeting engagement or so), and this rule that units pockets become cripples pretty immediately, at least one large case where the Germans where slowed down and suffered severely is already taken care of. And there is indeed no chance that the Soviets can change that, i.e. also have the possibility to do better than history (like the Germans with sending more units to AGS) since they can only react after the deal is closed already. Imagine the isolation only taking effect in the next opponents turn, i.e. after a complete weeks turn, and the units in the pocket still be unaffected in Soviet part of the same turn. It would still not be the same as being able to react rather than to blind-guess your defensive positioning, but it would change the Lvov (and the rest) dramatically.

I would very much like an alternative rule where pockets suffer less immediately and just loose some effectiveness per turn. Maybe allow pockets automatically to function under "beach supply rules" for the next two weeks. Even it were only an "unsupported rule", in case it breaks other issues or the AI. It might improve things a lot.

Speaking of the impossibility of bleeding the Wehrmacht white during the first stages of Barbarossa in WitE, has anyone toyed with the logistics, morale, transport etc. levels trying to obtain a casualty rate more similar to the actual one (without hampering the Germans' ability to advance as fast as thei did)? I wonder whether the issues with the current combat and logistic model might be partially addressed dialing some (variable with month?) ad hoc values into the options panel.

I don't understand your logic here. The editor allows you to adjust the MPs for each unit on the 'first' turn of a scenario. On the second turn the MPs will be at the normal setting based on type of unit, experience, supply etc. Why would this mess up 225 turns anymore than the Lvov Pocket does or doesn't do already?

I agree that the first turn is not right but I am faintly amazed that the player community's only approach is to suggest numerous changes that can only be implemented by the Devs. The same Devs who I presume are much more focused on WitW (the source of new revenue) and therefore unlikely to implement any such changes. This 'Dev fix it' approach is adopted on a number of other elements which can be easily fixed using the editor (e.g. the Stalingrad unit withdrawals)

I am not saying that using the editor will deliver a 100% solution - but then again neither do I believe that changes to the first turn rules would solve all the problems. What I am saying is that a sub optimal solution (but still an improvement) may be availble now and might be worth exploring further.

While what you say is true, part of the issue is the community has not deemed player made mods to be something they will play. If it isn't "official", it sees very little interest.

I don't understand your logic here. The editor allows you to adjust the MPs for each unit on the 'first' turn of a scenario. On the second turn the MPs will be at the normal setting based on type of unit, experience, supply etc. Why would this mess up 225 turns anymore than the Lvov Pocket does or doesn't do already?

I agree that the first turn is not right but I am faintly amazed that the player community's only approach is to suggest numerous changes that can only be implemented by the Devs. The same Devs who I presume are much more focused on WitW (the source of new revenue) and therefore unlikely to implement any such changes. This 'Dev fix it' approach is adopted on a number of other elements which can be easily fixed using the editor (e.g. the Stalingrad unit withdrawals)

I am not saying that using the editor will deliver a 100% solution - but then again neither do I believe that changes to the first turn rules would solve all the problems. What I am saying is that a sub optimal solution (but still an improvement) may be availble now and might be worth exploring further.

While what you say is true, part of the issue is the community has not deemed player made mods to be something they will play. If it isn't "official", it sees very little interest.

This would be very bad news, as I have spent a great deal of time creating a mod...almost since I purchased the game.....

I hope you guys don't mind me morphing the topic but it was touched on...

What is up with replacements? I am experimenting playing with the Soviets to maybe start a MP game soon. I saved essentially all of my armaments industry. By early '42 my armaments points are huge and growing, and my manpower is not quite as huge but is also growing. But every turn i get 150,000-160,000 new men into the line. Um, guys, could we add a few more? I have like 20,000 already formed infantry squads in the pool, etc.

I cannot get the troops into the field, i have tried lots of refit, some refit, no refit, everyone is at 100% toe. Is this normal? And is this stupid? I do not need to save armaments since i never use them all any way.

Im not sure i understand u entirely. So some answers might be based on wrong assumptions.

As to armaments just be happy. At some points during 42 there is change overs of squad types. That will eat up alot of armament so its necesarry/good thing to have a pool. When u start to make more armament heavy units like art divs and the such u will use up alot fast too.

About manpower. As too squads in pool they actually arent formed squads. They are shells(rifles, pan, handgrenades) without any manpower. In order to enter units they would have to draw manpower from the pool.

U say u have problems getting troops into the field. If every one is at 100% they naturally cant recieve any more. Only other way to make new units that can use the manpower/armaments in the pools. If u dont have units at 100%, then there could be some reasons they are not recieving replacements. If units are in frontlines they will recieve little and the best way to refit a unit fast is put it on a RR behind the frontlines.

I could suspect u play the AI at normal and please correct me if wrong. Thats not to hard and in no way the same as playing a human player. If playing normal difficulty i suggest turning it up a notch. I would say even that wont really prepare to play most human players but it is closer than normal.

If u look around AARs and discussions u see thats it happens that having russian player only recieving 80-90-95k per turn in 42. Deduct the auto attrition and all of a sudden what is left to lose in combat/build of forces isnt particular much.

I saw Pelton was looking for a game so if u want a challenge. I suggest u take him up on it.

No, i am an experienced gamer, my units are all understrength. I am playing this against the computer for a bit to first, get an idea of the Soviets, (i have played 2 PBEM games as the Germans) and second to fool around with how replacements work. I had tons of understrength tank units set to 100% toe, on refit, no where near the front, on a railroad, have manpower, armaments, and squad shells, but would gain maybe 10 squads a turn when they were at 25% squad strength.

It does not seem to matter how many units i have on the map, the game does not seem to want to give me more than 150,000 to 160,000 men per turn.

I had rotated a couple rifle division armies off of the front in spring '42 since they were in horrible shape, put them on refit, and suddenly my cavalry corps, who were also off the line on refit stopped getting cav squads. I had been getting 60 or 70 cav squads a week, when i put a bunch of rifle divisions on refit i went down to 9 cav squads a week! Again, plenty of armaments and manpower.

I am an inveterate tinkerer and i would like to understand this replacement system.

No, i am an experienced gamer, my units are all understrength. I am playing this against the computer for a bit to first, get an idea of the Soviets, (i have played 2 PBEM games as the Germans) and second to fool around with how replacements work. I had tons of understrength tank units set to 100% toe, on refit, no where near the front, on a railroad, have manpower, armaments, and squad shells, but would gain maybe 10 squads a turn when they were at 25% squad strength.

It does not seem to matter how many units i have on the map, the game does not seem to want to give me more than 150,000 to 160,000 men per turn.

I had rotated a couple rifle division armies off of the front in spring '42 since they were in horrible shape, put them on refit, and suddenly my cavalry corps, who were also off the line on refit stopped getting cav squads. I had been getting 60 or 70 cav squads a week, when i put a bunch of rifle divisions on refit i went down to 9 cav squads a week! Again, plenty of armaments and manpower.

I am an inveterate tinkerer and i would like to understand this replacement system.

thanks, Mike

Ok Mike,

Good, but there are still some question. U say u'r in 42 and ur units recieve 150k to 160k per turn. Now i dont know the frontlines in ur game. Reason i ask is that by 42 the manpower multiplier is 40. Assuming u havent lost a single manpower point u would get 40*3937 =157,8k per turn. Well i assume u do have lost some territory. The historic summer 42 lines would give u around 2600*40=104k which ofc is less than 150k-160k So u might have a manpower pool build up, but it would be drained giving out 150k 160k per turn since it would be more than what i assume u get in. There are a number of other factors. Kickback from disabled, swicthing OOB for lower manpower ones freeing up manpower. Still doesnt explain that kinda differnece on the long term. Since its an AI game and i dont suspect the AI of cheating by looking at the threads here. Couldnt u make a seperate thread, posting some pics about ur manpower production and its pool. Not the squad pool. Note here that u can switch pools and see what is in active pool, what is in transite pool and overall pool. I suspect, as default is the overall pool, that a number of ppl dont realize the effect of this. They look at pool and think its what they have to use right here and now. Thats not alwasy the case. At times, tho far from all the time, the overall figur is actually the same as what is in the transit pool, leaving 0 in the active pool.

As too tank divs give a detail pic of one of those that seemingly wont recieve replacements. When u say it has 25% ToE do u mean over all or for inf type portions of the div. U could possibly have a div with full inf but lacking all tanks being low in ToE but not cause of a lack of manpower but tanks/combat vehicles.

You are correct; manpower is my limiting factor. I guess the system uses the manpower you have that turn and then after production new manpower goes into the pool. So i always see manpower in the pool.

Sorry, was confused. More than usually!

Carp, that means i did not need to save every armament point. Not enough manpower. I probably fiddled around with the Soviets back in like 1.02 or something and remembered having virtually limitless manpower.

You are correct; manpower is my limiting factor. I guess the system uses the manpower you have that turn and then after production new manpower goes into the pool. So i always see manpower in the pool.

Sorry, was confused. More than usually!

Thanks again for your help.

Mike

Your welcome,

U far from the first falling for this and i think there are still plenty a ppl that dont know this We all have to learn at some point. I had to, too.

Posts: 3076
Joined: 11/26/2009 From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, AustraliaStatus: offline

This is quite funny

I spent a few months away from WitE and when I decide to come back guess what: a thread about the T1 Lvov Pocket.

@Red Lancer: I tried to make an alternative scenario evening the odds for Southwestern Front by tweaking deployment, MP allocation, freezing some German units which didn't do anything remarkable during the first three days of the war, revising TOE's, gaming Reserve mechanics to get those Tank Divisions reacting to German spearheads... and it just didn't work at all. Flavio is - actually was, he made very much the same remarks months ago about the surprise rules - totally right. The game is completely rigged during the first turn, and this rigidity - as Pelton says - can be easily "used to achieve a breakthrough" (this is an euphemism for "exploiting") given enough intelligence, time and willpower.

What can happen with no Lvow pocket. In this game my Axis opponent did not do a Lvow pocket. I was able to shuttle out some very good units as well as reinforce the center and Leningrad as that is where he sent the bulk of his Panzers.

Note all of the mountain divsions that have not even attacked his MLR yet. I will be able to do hasty attacks with them as his forts run out.

Now its time for the Blizzard pain with a Soviet army over 5.5 million men. Also the 37th tank divsion is a monster. Im pretty sure it will go "poof" soon but damn what a beast!

The game will certainly need re balancing if the Lvov armies are allowed to escape. I still favor some sort of enforced Soviet forward defense.Either by making it vital to hold forward cities for as long as possible or possibly make heavy industry more important or some sort of simulated C&C induced paralysis, or a combination of all three.

Could it just be that its a overall reflection of the player abilties? i mean if u dont do Lvov, what else doesnt the german player do that should have been done/being capable of.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Not a ton I don't think. The Russians just run. If you don't sent the forces in the south, they run out of gas in the center. Several of the AAR's I have seen lately have the Russians running from Leningrad as well, so even if you put extra punch behind AGN, it doesn't matter.

I have not seen a lot of comments about the Russian mountain divisions, but if they manage to get several of them out from the border area and also preserve what they get from Caucasus region along with doing some training with them, they can be absolute beasts in the winter. They have far more mobility than regular infantry and do not have a glass jaw like the armor brigades do when the snow is flying. Of course, this assumes the German is silly enough to fight. Instead, the Germans just get their track shoes on as well and run away.

The picture ofc only shows as much, but since the german hasnt even or barely so made it over the lower/middle Dneiper, it cant be that its a question of just running. Chernigov is on the middle Dnieper. Quite the opposite seems to be suggested by that.

As too just running, it seems it has been tried a few times lately. The only that has had a result so far is DF vs Speedy, where russian side gave up by turn 10ish. By the nature of it we cant know the result in the games given up by other reason so u cant take any thing definitive from that.

Changes to the Lvov pocket will not occur in a vacuum, or indeed, at all, prior to WitE2. WitE may be regarded as a finished product at this point, with no more fundamental changes, only the occasional bug fix. When I'm talking about fixing the pocket, I'm very clearly looking to the second iteration of the game, which will include many other changes.

The runaway in the south is product of the Lvov pocket; absent that SW Front can put up a fight there and should do so. A stock AGS will get nowhere very fast down there with a historical opening until AGC is threatening its rear. I don't understand why people refuse to believe this, but it is true and easily confirmed by playtesting. The fashion du jour nowadays, alas, seems to be to run for the hills more or less everywhere and as fast as possible.

Posts: 3076
Joined: 11/26/2009 From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, AustraliaStatus: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Changes to the Lvov pocket will not occur in a vacuum, or indeed, at all, prior to WitE2. WitE may be regarded as a finished product at this point, with no more fundamental changes, only the occasional bug fix. When I'm talking about fixing the pocket, I'm very clearly looking to the second iteration of the game, which will include many other changes.

The runaway in the south is product of the Lvov pocket; absent that SW Front can put up a fight there and should do so. A stock AGS will get nowhere very fast down there with a historical opening until AGC is threatening its rear. I don't understand why people refuse to believe this, but it is true and easily confirmed by playtesting. The fashion du jour nowadays, alas, seems to be to run for the hills more or less everywhere and as fast as possible.

To be honest, one first step towards fixing the Lvov pocket would be to fix Victory Conditions, so there's a reason for the Soviets to fight forward in the South. The main reason why you can see the Red Army fighting hard on the roads to Leningrad and Moscow is because there isn't much depth to absorb the German offensive. In the South, the story is totally different. The vast expanses of the Ukraine take some time to be crossed, and it is a fact that Axis supply lines will barely be able to reach Rostov before Blizzard. All you need is to delay enough to evacuate Kharkov and Stalino.

In the past, I have been reluctant to agree with people proposing sudden death rules (like Michael T). But over time I think I do agree with such rules - to some extent.

That is, in order to keep in the game you need to keep a reasonable VP ratio which takes into account losses and industry destroyed/resources lost as much as territorial objectives. Such sudden death rules would basically account for the fact that Sov commanders doing a really poor job that get a one-way ticket to Lubyanka, rather than depicting some totally ahistorical Hoi3-like surrender event. And these sudden death rules would also apply - of course - for the German player (GROFAZ is bummed and makes him a 'landed knight' in Western Poland).

The problem is how to keep track of this alternate VP formula. Joel was very clear saying that 2by3 wouldn't devote any programming time to something the players can sort out themselves [sic]. I didn't like much that statement - and I still I don't - but I think we can do something. Say, like writing some small application that allows the players to enter data from the game and does the math.

This, in its turn, has two problems. First, the fact that you have to enter the data by hand. There's not any kind of API (or log file which can be parsed) that would allow a 3rd-party app to auto-magically keep track of this stuff. And then there's the problem of not having the game playing the part of an umpire, terminating the game according to the rules and avoiding situations such as the Sov (or the Axis) saying that the game isn't over. But as we said in Spain, the one who sleeps in the same bed as his children, usually gets up in the morning wet.

The first problem is the one which is actually important. Would be anyone interested in brainstorming/working on this? I can do the coding work, but I would really like feedback from people here like - in no particular order - such as Klydon, Michael T, Ketza, Kamil, Flavio, Pelton, etc. about this.

The problem BG, in any attempt to come up with a sudden death rule, is that the discussion will be derailed by those who just disagree with the concept entirely. Look at the negative and distracting commentary in previous threads on the subject. I would like to help out, but how do you keep your thread on track? Even the, dare I say popular, Alt scenario was almost derailed by the naysayers.

As to the Soviet runaway strategy. I still maintain it’s a failsafe option. I am yet to lose a game as Soviet and I have run (to varying degree's) in every game I have played as Soviet. In my current game I feel I am well in control, but it looks like the game has come to a premature end.

Posts: 3076
Joined: 11/26/2009 From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, AustraliaStatus: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T The problem BG, in any attempt to come up with a sudden death rule, is that the discussion will be derailed by those who just disagree with the concept entirely. Look at the negative and distracting commentary in previous threads on the subject. I would like to help out, but how do you keep your thread on track? Even the, dare I say popular, Alt scenario was almost derailed by the naysayers.

Green button to those Michael, really. I'm past caring about sh*tty comments. And setting up a Google Groups discussion group is easy as peanuts, man :)

Are you interested? I do really think that looking at the elements - territory, troop losses and industry losses - we can come up with something which makes sense in order to measure 'performance' and create incentives to keep people to play 'in character'.